< April 23 April 25 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 24[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Tawker 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association des étudiants musulmans[edit]

About some Muslim student association. The article says nothing about it. This doesn't sound notable at all. WhisperToMe 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Tawker 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSA UdeM[edit]

About some Muslim student association. The article says nothing about it. This doesn't sound notable at all. WhisperToMe 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, GAT-X103 Buster Gundam, GAT-02L2 Dagger L, GAT-04 Windam, GAT-X370 Raider Gundam[edit]

This is part of a walled garden of almost a hundred articles that I proposed for deletion. All PROD tags have been removed, so they come here. I'll nominate them one at a time or in small groups to avoid problems like those seen with the mass nomination of Polynesian mythology articles. This is obviously fancruft, highly specific material about a fictional world. These articles go into excrutiating detail on the specifications of fictional giant robots from a Japanese cartoon. It's not of general or encyclopedic appeal, and this series already has a Wiki at WikiCities anyway. It needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're already at wikia:c:Gundam. I guess I should've mentioned that. Brian G. Crawford 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote the same way on those article. I do want to reiterate your point and Redxiv's though; Gundam is a huge franchise and arguably genre defining. Kotepho 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Dominus 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Jimbo didn't say about hypothetical content generally, says bugger-all about the actual worth of the actual content under actual discussion, even if one ignores the ever-popular false dichotomy of "If have X, you must keep unrelated Y!" Perhaps we could stick to the actual topic at hand? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a false dichotomy at all. The claim is not that the articles should be deleted specifically because they are about Gundam, but that they are "fancruft" for a science fiction series. But if that's the reason we're going to delete these articles, the same reason applies to any fictional science fiction series like Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.88.2 (talk • contribs)
Could you please add why you believe these should be kept? While your contributions to the articles are appreciated, they, the nom, and the noteworthiness of the Gundam Wiki have nothing to do with whether these articles should be kept. You might want to look at WP:V, WP:N, and WP:CRUFT --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is only trying to delete minor components of the series. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please base your opinion on policy, especially WP:V and WP:N, not on your individual feelings. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you assert the non-notability of a few major, unique ships in a well known series? While Gundam might be well known, having articles for minor things like this is [WP:CRUFT]]. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness has no bearing on notability (WP:N) and verifiability (WP:N). Please read these policies before commenting on deletions - this is not a question of whether the articles are important to some editors, but is instead a question as to whether the articles conform to policies for inclusion. Wikipedia has a specific mission, and this mission does not include being a repository of all knowledge. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? --Philosophus 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I will reconsider this if the articles are properly sourced.
Update 2: Rappapa seems to have started to give references for the articles. Whether these references satisfy WP:V or not is unknown, but they do seem to at least partially dispell the copvio concerns. I am just changing my vote to weak delete. Others should look into how well these sources would work. --Philosophus 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit was a vote on one of these AfD's. WP:CRUFT has been reverted, please do not change other pages in order to make a point and undermine the positions of others. --Philosophus 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the only way to control trigger-happy wikipedes — who make no positive contributions to entries in the main space, well... so be it.
(FYI: This user who nominated the articles is an avowed deletionist.) Folajimi 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with being a deletionist. And we shouldn't be keeping articles that don't belong here just to silence a group of Wikipedians. Fagstein 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as that is your opinion, I say YMMV. Given my first-hand experience with such users, I am unpersuaded that they have any appreciation of the effort which goes into creating worthwhile articles.
As for the latter half of your remark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Looking over my remarks, I never suggested censoring users who are interested in removing entries from the Main Space. (Considering the amount of indisputable cruft which I have "stumbled upon" in Wikipedia, I do wonder why so much effort is expended on trying to deep-six contributions like these...)
At any rate, I maintain that deletionists are a little more than a nuisance to this project; that goes double for inclusionists. Folajimi 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Stars[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable weekly show on a university radio station that doesn't have its own article. This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Tubbywsou. This is the show's host. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so the station does have its own article, but the creator didn't get the link right. It's still not a notable show.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special School (comic)[edit]

A non notable webcomic hosted on the non notable SpiderForest collective, here. The spiderforest domain has an Alexa rank of over 300,000 and this is just one of the many comics on the obscure network. You can also see their forums here, not exactly buzzing with activity. - Hahnchen 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: invalid reasoning. This is not a vote. By making blanket statements without reasoning you are asking for your opinion to be discounted by the closer. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm & Cory[edit]

I think people have absolutely abandoned the comixPedia wiki. It just doesn't have the high profile shelf space of Wikipedia's List of webcomics nor the prestige. Anyway, this comic, like many others, isn't there and isn't notable. This article is the work of sole contributor and its subject can be seen here. The website does not attain any Alexa rank, its forums are mostly dead and Googling "Norm and Cory" brings up 60 links whereas "Norm & Cory" brings up 40. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken[edit]

This page is mostly original research with bits and pieces of Capcom information to support it. Pretty much all encyclopedic and relevant info can be found on the Ryu (Street Fighter), Ken Masters and Akuma (Street Fighter) pages. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Valentine War and Second Bloody Valentine War[edit]

Fictional wars from a Japanese cartoon that involves battles between huge anthropomorphic robots resembling samurai wearing different colors of car fenders. Part of a huge walled garden I am nominating for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're already there. Brian G. Crawford 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Catholic Crew Club[edit]

Non-notable high school rowing club (Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School)

  • But that's true of a lot of deleted material regardless. --Saforrest 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - Snowball. Tawker 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin & Sawyer Miller[edit]

Non-notable actors, delete as per WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article. Reconsideration of the decision should occur through the undeletion process. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Sheldon[edit]

Delete as being non-notable actor. Does not pass WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - an actor who's appeared on Friends and the Bold and the Beautiful is notable, even if the actor is barely old enough to speak. - Richardcavell 01:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the text only got moved to one of the kids. I've tagged Noelle Sheldon for speedy as a redirect to a nonexistent page. Fan1967 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to The Sims. Thryduulf 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Resource[edit]

Non-notable website, prod tag apparently removed by site founder. Objectivist-C 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Chawathe[edit]

Non-notable bio. Probably vanity. First version created by User:Amolchawathe was userfied. This version created by user:Aliciaanderson who has edited no other articles. -- RHaworth 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Salafia[edit]

As a matter of principle, I bring vanity pages here for a notability check. An interesting slip by the creator confirms this as vanity. -- RHaworth 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He exists, he's a student and has got into the news. Actual achiements are limited. It's down to individual judgement whether a fairly easy way of getting oneself into the media is actually notable. Personally I'd Delete Dlyons493 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." and/or "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" was the ones it seemed to satisfy, particularly the last one. --Knucmo2 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He holds no office - so the first is not satisfied. Anyone can sue, by so doing he has achieved a small amount of easily achievable media coverage - that's hardly renown or notoriety. Dlyons493 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I meant to imply that I was Irish by the placement of my vote above, but that was bit subtle :-) The case itself is pretty notable in Ireland but I'd never heard of Salafia before Wiki. He has been mentioned a few times in the media all right but they had escaped me - someone who followed the news closely would probably have heard the name but I'd be surprised if 5% of a random sample in a Dublin street would know who he is. Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Haworth,

Thank you for putting the issue of the proposed deletion of my Wikipedia entry up for discussion. I am new, as you know, and am not sure how and where to respond to the issues.

One of the reasons I decided to write the page is because I was surprised to discover that I am mentioned in Wikipedia a few times, and thought it would be useful for everyone if I provided a link to basic factual information about myself.

In addition, I have appeared in a good deal of newspaper articles around the world, as a spokesperson for various groups and issues. I think it is important to those groups and issues that accurate information be available, in order to lend credibility to the statements made. Because it is my job to make the statements. For example I have been featured in the Irish Times 127 times since 2002. One of the latest is reprinted below.

As an aside, while I am taking evening classes, I am not a 'student' in the sense that I do work as a lawyer, but do not want to advertise that.

The Tara issue is high profile here in Ireland, and my case has just been appealed to the Supreme Court, so it will run for another couple of years. Much inaccurate information has appeared about me in the media, where I have been branded a "legal terrorist" and other things I won't mention.

[a google search might give you a better idea of the situation]

Kind regards,

Vincent Salafia

[frenzy is at the cost of everything else Irish Times Sat, Mar 18, 06]

Tuathal

Oh, and I did notice a category in WP:BIO that might be more suitable than political figures: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuathal (talk • contribs) .

Tuathal

Forgot to mention I'm Irish, but I think this has more to do with policy than notoriety. Due to the contentious road building program in Ireland, this guy, who is at the forefront of opposition campaigns is going to come up in articles related to the program, and Ireland is seeing huge development in this area, so I would expect articles to be developed around this topic see N3 road & Hill of Tara, so having bio article about this guy would not conflict with WP:BIO, but it cannot be created and substantially written by himself. So Tuathal please read WP:AUTO, IMO it takes precedence in this matter, and the solution is, as I've pointed out above, simple --KaptKos 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AUTO is a guideline, not a policy. There is no reason to Delete this article just because it is written by the subject. If it contains factual information and is NPOV (which it seems to me it does) it is fine as it is. If it does have some NPOV, that can be salvaged by others editing the article, there is no reason to delete it and then start from scratch IMHO. User:Tuathal did not try to hide that it was an autobiography and there is no reason to suspect foul play. He is a newbie, so let's assume good faith. TH 12:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'm bad, its not policy. I will AGF. I off to eat some humble pie:) --KaptKos 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silpelit[edit]

This article is irrelivant and contains no useful encyclopedic information. As such, it should be removed from Wikipedia permanently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabinicLawyer (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was freaky. I mean delete. Chick Bowen 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom car[edit]

Article is on a patent application. Only relevant ghits [2] seem to be awe and gawking over how great the concept is (based solely on the application). No apparent proof of existence. original research and/or non-notable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I further recommend, per JIP's comment below, that there be no prejudice against recreation if/when this technology comes to light --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krispen Hartung[edit]

Numerous self-promotional google hits e.g. CD Baby, but no obvious notability, per WP:BAND Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ghalib Street[edit]

non-notable street, borderline travel guide also Delete Jaranda wat's sup 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normal streets normally get deleted on AFD if they are not state routes and stuff by default, we can't have articles on every street Jaranda wat's sup 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any server space limitations that would prevent us from having one more article about a street. In my home city, there are plenty of streets that would warrant their own article regardless of where you can use them to drive to. This article could be a stayer. - Richardcavell 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamo uknz[edit]

WP:CORP WP:VAIN Non-notable company, self promotion John Nagle 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two (2) hits in Google, both on Myspace pages. The company's web site doesn't even have any products live yet. The company's web site allows people to "join" and reports only 7 members. "prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Vamp:Willow.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive Demand[edit]

I believe that this is either copy pasted and copyvio, or original research. Perhaps whomever summarily removed my prod would like to defend this wall of text? Appropriate Username 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it out on a speedy basis as clearly original research (signed!) etc. --Vamp:Willow 11:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sonic Adventures[edit]

Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic hosted on Angelfire, with the article written by the author. Absolutely nn, only reason it's been at Wikipedia so long is because nothing links there. - Hahnchen 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brigida[edit]

A page claiming that this guy was in Rolling Stone magazine, although he hardly shows up on google. Probably a hoax. Delete. Grandmasterka 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Gokcekus[edit]

Looks like a non-notable academic. A few hundred Google hits, but any professor would have that. Can't really see any notability. JW1805 (Talk) 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of themed timelines[edit]

Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Anyone can edit wikipedia so if there is something missing, by all means, add it to the list. It's your participation that will help this list expand over time. -- JJay 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, which was that if all the timelines are added to the list that should be (it doesn't matter by whom) then the list will be too long to be one page anymore. Thus the argument that it is all on one page is a red herring. --JeffW 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it gets that long where it is almost complete then we can examine our options such as deletion. For the time being, considering it is all on one page and far from complete, deletion is obviously premature. Of course, it is also possible that many of our existing timeline pages would themselves be merged or deleted over time, thereby eliminating the risk that the list would ever achieve a length that would even suggest the need for deconsolidation. Not that this is intended in any way to disparage the often very real benefits derived from spinning-off articles and lists. Despite your well-meaning question that seems to view AfD as a discounting mechanism establishing a net present value for articles based on future editing flows, my personal timeline for forming an opinion on AfD only runs for five days. Put simply, I am uncomfortable with a capital sentence rendered for alleged future crimes. In the present case, now well beyond my timeline due to the quite unfortunate initial close, no crime has been committed so the judgement must be to acquit. -- JJay 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised at the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink) and on Deletion Review. Restored and re-opened without prejudice.
  • For previous existing backlinks I removed see here for edits with summary "removed red link (themed timeline)."
  • Also here for redlinks removed by User:JeffW in this period.
brenneman{L} 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Whilst many editors seem to be convinced that this is either a game guide or "cruft", it actually has the form of a glossary of the type that is quite common on Wikipedia, and there is significant evidence that the bulk of the terms are in common use and are referenced on relevant gaming sites. The popularity of this particular game and the sheer size of the population of players is also a factor here. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft terminology[edit]

This seems rather cruftish and unencyclopedic to me, something that is probably more appropriate at WOWwiki. Delete per WP:NOT. --Hetar 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Eivindt@c 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I completely understand your point. I suppose it's in personal reading of the NOT texts; I feel that "specialized fields" meant more of the academic genre, rather than fictional video games. Que sera sera, and to each his/her own. Teke 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While video games may be set in fictional "worlds", they, themselves, are not fictional - I'm looking at one sitting on my desk right now. Also, video games and computer games are a billion dollar world-wide industry and in that sense do deserve a tad of respect. Neither of these things justify keeping the article necessarily, but just some food for thought.--Naha|(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I realized after I wrote "fictional" the way I did that it could be misconstrued as negative; I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that while the video game industry itself is a specialized(and lucrative) field, I don't think the product itself is deserving of that consideration. Users of the game may specialize, but to me that is fandom. Once again something I have no problem with, but that's in NOT too. Teke 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the breakpoint, though -- hundreds of thousands of people play this game, avidly, probably many more than practice some of those specialized academic fields. Its glossary page isn't any less valid than the Contract_bridge_glossary or Chess_terminology pages. I really hope people aren't voting on the basis of "highbrow game good" / "geek loser video game bad" mindsets. RGTraynor 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope that is not the case. Sometimes I get that feeling from people while I am working on game related articles. --Naha|(talk) 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure that is not the basis of my vote, I don't know about others. Teke 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out that this nomination has nothing to do with POV. I'm an avid WOW fan, I have the user box on my user page, and spend a large amount of time contributing to WOW related articles. The precident for this nomination is more clearly lined out by this AfD which relates much more closely to WOW than bridge does. --Hetar 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking mnore of an anti-video-game. Whether conscious or not, people often have a POV about video games that they are less respectable(and therefore something you'd less likely associate with an encyclopedia) than non-video games and I'm betting many people that voted delete here would vote keep should the bridge glossary go up for deletion(the fact that it hasn't seems to support this). If you have a good reason for how video game glossaries violate WP:NOT when non-video game glossaries don't, type it up and I'll change my vote. I'm not a fan of WoW myself, but I can't see how we can base a deletion on whether glossaries seem "encyclopedic" or "cruftish" and not be POV. Shadowoftime 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain, in terms of Wikipedia policy, what the difference is between this AfD (and other deleted game articles quoted as precedent) and the articles I've just linked? Is there a reason that Point 8 here says "video game guides" rather than the less specific "game guides?

We need consistency. I'd actually be willing to argue that all of these glossaries are non-encyclopaedic, but if we keep one, especially one as crufty as List_of_Internet_slang (which can almost certainly be found on thousands of other, more appropriate sites), then precedent should be established that we keep all. --ES2 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowbell14 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Book of Nehemiah. – Alphax τεχ 07:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noadiah[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternitas Coyotii[edit]

non-notable, no book sources cited, vanity page? 999 03:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete the current version (a copy is currently at User:Stanley011/Robert Federer) - Liberatore(T) 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Federer[edit]

seeming nn, but he did invent some paper-whitening thing and he is Roger's dad M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted--expanded upon and cleaned up, clearly, but not deleted--the study was published in a notable publication and seemed to have a significant impact upon the field Stanley011 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep per Stanley. The El Reyko 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article needs to show what kind of impact Robert Federer's study had on the field, and it should show the sources. But are we sure this guy warrants his own article? If there isn't enough material on Robert Federer, the info in this article can possibly just be included in the Roger Federer article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article, as it now is, is rather incomplete; I do plan on adding much more to it in the coming weeksStanley011 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the haste with which some editors believe incomplete articles should be dealt with, I recommend you copy the article to your user space, work on it there, and bring it back to the main space when it is finished. Instructions can be found at WP:USER. When expanding the article pay attention to the notability guideline. There is no question that he co-wrote an article on paper-making technology, the question is whether it is "revolutionary." There are thousands of scientific papers published every month and only a very few are revolutionary. Thatcher131 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thatcher, I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I will do that. Stanley011 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC). P.S. How do I copy the article to my user space? Stanley011 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stanley: Go to the Robert Federer page and go to edit. Copy the code there. Then, go to User:Stanley011 and click edit. Then paste the code. Yay! M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miss1on: When you write "copy the code there" what code are you refering to? Where do I find this code? Stanley011 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The complete text in the edit window -- Hirudo 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Corollary of Varying Levels of Male Confidence on Female Affinity[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, and is clearly original research, but there's no clear speedy criterion for this sort of thing. Should be deleted though; Wikipedia is not the place to publish research. Chick Bowen 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military careers open to the colorblind[edit]

Delete. Per WP:WWIN: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Any relevant information is already contained in Color blindness. -AED 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which doesn't affect whether this is a noteworthy article under Wikipedia guidelines. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Children use encyclopedias to help shape their career aspirations.davidzuccaro 11:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do they? So that's where I'm going wrong! -- Saberwyn 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randie Blooding[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article to me. Is the associate professor of voice at Ithaca College really notable enough to warrant his own encyclopedia article? ekedolphin 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indrayudh Shome[edit]

Subject wishes this article deleted because he is "not anyone noteworthy". (I have no opinion on this nomination, but it doesn't make a very strong claim of notability.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silentarmy[edit]

this article does not proclaim notability. I could be wrong on this, but it comes across as a autobiography of a nonnotable group. Kukini 06:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I only found 3 hits to the Silentarmy to which this article refers on Google. Kukini 06:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shintani[edit]

Prodded as listcruft, de-prodded on the grounds that it's a disambiguation page. However, neither item that's being "disambiguated" even has an article to disambiguate from any other article in the first place. Icarus 06:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majestical[edit]

Gibberish? Dictionary definition? Hoax? Take your pick. Dspserpico 07:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru's Son[edit]

Information is already covered in the main Inuyasha (character) article. A redirect would be pointless, as this title does not make sense. Inuyasha is Sesshomaru's brother, not his son. Icarus 07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Falun Gong club[edit]

One of the many non-notable student political groups at university campuses. Other similar groups don't even have an article.--PatCheng 08:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Tracks[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Very new site - unable to establish notability. —Whouk (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to merge that wasn't already there. Chick Bowen 02:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milano-San Remo 2006[edit]

This article is made redundant by the existence of the Milano-Sanremo 2006 article. The official title of the race is "Milano-Sanremo" as opposed to the "Milano-San Remo" this article uses. Thethinredline 08:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Alger[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability. Dismas|(talk) 08:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Blatant hoax/ non-notable biography silliness.--Sean Black (talk?) 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Plapp[edit]

I think that this should actually be speedied as patent nonsense about a person for whom there has been no assertion of notability WP:CSD G1 and A7. However, this recently created article has attracted quite a few edits and I thought that in light of that AfD might be a better option Politepunk 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(speedy) Delete - per my nomination - Politepunk 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, after the commission of the sitcom "Mike: Attack of the Plapps" I feel this is a noteworthy article. Strong Keep Max Brown 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (this comment was made by 212.219.117.140 —Whouk (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment I have reverted this to a previous version as this contribution was tampered with by User:212.219.117.140 - Politepunk 09:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, after the commission of the sitcom "Mike: Attack of the Plapps" I feel this is a noteworthy article. Strong Keep - Max Brown2 11:07, 24 April 2006

  • Delete per nom. The answer to whether the college is qualified to do so is "No." That shouldn't affect the discussion, though, since whether the word "Professor" appends to an academic's name in a particular country ought not affect his or her duties there, if the subject otherwise satisfies the Professor Test. RGTraynor 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Professor" is a title in a University or College. One is not educated to the level of professor. One can be educated to a doctorate, but that does not mean all people with doctorates are notable. Kukini 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and nice for him to be introduced so at parties and suchlike. It still doesn't in of itself translate to notability. RGTraynor 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very informative, accurate artical.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily and Elena Bodkin[edit]

Non-notable actors/"props". Bjelleklang - talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to P&O. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastcraft[edit]

Prod removed, so bringing to AfD. This was a name used by P&O for a ferry service and, as such, not-notable. Eusebeus 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was recommend possible redirect to bianca.com

Smut Shack[edit]

Prodded by User:Maustrauser as advertising (which it isn't), removed by User:Kappa; however, the information here is covered more extensively and articulately at Bianca.com, so this is unnecessary and redundant. Eusebeus 09:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a bad faith nomination? I thought it was a PROD, Kappa didn't. We were in dispute. Thank you Eusebeus. Maustrauser 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Surfing Association[edit]

Prodded by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello, deprodded by User:Kappa on grounds that it sounds notable. A quick check, however, determines that it isn't. Under 200 Google hits [[5]], many of which are Wikipedia mirror sites. Eusebeus 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Eusebeus presented reasons for the nom on its own terms. Do you have grounds for your explicitly systematic votes of Speedy Keep other than your dislike of Eusebeus' nominating disputed prods? RGTraynor 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebus seems to be only nominating Kappa's disputed prods. This is one of the few cases in recent days where he has given a more expansive rationale. Thatcher131 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the last thirty AfDs Eusebeus has filed, and in each and every case he's given an expansive rationale. RGTraynor 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicane (video game)[edit]

Prodded by User:RayaruB as Non-notable game that never came out of development ; deprodded by User:Kappa. The unrelenting use of the conditional tense here would seem to suggest that, while this might have merited an article had it ever actually been made, its actual lack of existence serves as an impediment to its encyclopedic value. Eusebeus 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- are you suggesting that voting Keep is in regard to the merits of the dispute? RGTraynor 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since I don't want to spam every single AFD this happened on, I'll just say it once here. Opining speedy keep based on "bad faith nomination" on a series of AfDs of deproded articles is the pot calling the kettle black. If you are going to opine Keep or Delete, at least do it based on the merits of the article. This is borderline WP:POINT.--Isotope23 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is sending only Kappa deprods to AfD, as Eusebus has been doing. Thatcher131 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "Pot and Kettle" comment. Look, I'm not going to start attacking people personally, but there is a lot of poor behavior surrounding this whole situation and it's not just confined to one person. This is sort of the wrong place for that discussion though.--Isotope23 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the principles to WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL -- which, in fact, I do not believe Eusebeus is violating -- is that it isn't okay to be disruptive just because you think someone else is. As it happens, given Kappa's prod deletion totals, Eusebeus is nowhere near to AfDing them all, so I have a very hard time crediting any claim against him of disruption. RGTraynor 16:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Cluedo. Flowerparty☀ 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clue VCR Mystery Game[edit]

Prodded by User:RayaruB as non-notable game ; deprodded by User:Kappa, so here it is at AfD. Non-notable release. Eusebeus 09:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge per nom, although though this is articles for deletion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.P. Products[edit]

Another Kappa deprod of the company founded by an engineer who created the obscure tt-scale model railroad. This company did exist ([[7]]), but it is now defunct. The information could be merged into the TT scale article, which is hardly overwhelmed with detail. Eusebeus 09:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep all. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refounding Public Administration[edit]

Non-notable "classic text", part of a walled garden of probable collegecruft from a single user that also includes:

Many of these articles have gone down the speedy/tag removed without comment > PROD/tag removed without comment path, so now they come here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Non-notable is an interesting term. Just who gets to decide that and what are the implications to one of throwing it around flippantly? 105 people appoint someone a ranging expert...the august REDVERS...on whatever he wishes to rudely lambast and that is the basis of governance? Talk about the Wild West!

I notice there are not articles concerning Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones--easily two of the most important active political scientists in America by any serious expert's opinion...but no article on them? Obviously not notable. No article on Charles Perrow? Insignificant? No, forgive me, not notable. What would qualify one to call Charles Perrow or Dwight Waldo not notable, I wonder. Waldo has probably been read in Korean more than the sum total of all the people who will ever gaze upon REDVER's obscure writings he lists so pridefully at the bottom of his user page. What expertise and degree would you have called upon to state that Frederick C. Mosher is not notable when his work is translated in 8 languages and could probably be discussed by senior government officials in 10s of countries? I'm just curious what sort of definition of encyclopedia that might fulfill?

I was obviously mistaken in thinking that the purpose here is to start a thread that expands underexplored knowledge based on one's legitimate and demonstrable learning as expressed in articles. Now I find I did that only to have it ridiculed by the ignorant Mr. X...or REDVERS as he prefers. The Encyclopedia of Public Administration which would mirror most of what I put in here costs hundreds of dollars but would have been neither succinct nor wholly accurate. Just what is the point of the silly articles on obscure European punk bands and photos of even more obscure Belgian fountains you seem to prefer as content (if WP is not a free resource) when there is almost no discussion of the primary field that studies government bureaucracy and dozens of allied areas? I suppose it's just yet another Internet power trip of some frustrated and indenty-starved persons without the guts to sign their name or to discuss their qualifications on their web pages or in their edits. I suppose this resort to insult by REDVERS when someone has donated their time and expertise is deemed acceptable etiquette here. Shame. What a puny thing to do...to use your administrative authority to go through a contrib file to systematically delete contributions. That is strikingly ugly and remarkably small. People like you are exactly what the idea of free software and knowledge is not about. Oh dear. I had heard this was the deal of late here, but I was so naively hopeful. What a bizarre ethic you have; thank goodness we have relatively few power abusers as serious editors in the print world. Congratulations, you have preserved your fiefdom from another serious contributor. Ryan Lanham 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also be mindful of the need for verifiability. It is not enough for you to assert that the accomplishments of these scholars is notable in their fields; each article needs to point to some independent reliable sources (as Uppland shows below through JSTOR). Also, the burden for any edit (whether a minor content change or the creation of a new article) is on the editor, to show with reference to Notability and Verifiability that the edit or article is justified. However, it certainly would have been more polite for someone to contact you and refer you to these policies, giving you a few days to work on the articles, before proposing them for deletion. Thatcher131 04:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I revoked my delete opinion above based on Thatcher131's reasoning, which is rather sound. I think it is worthwhile to give Ryan a chance to source these articles and prove that they meet accepted wikipedia guidelines. I want to reiterate what Thatcher said above though... speaking to a human about their reputations would constitute original research and is not going to meet verifiability. These articles need to be sourced with written citations (web or good old-fashioned print) that support the claims made in the articles. This shouldn't be too difficult for some (if not all) of these articles based on what u p p l a n d has stated below.--Isotope23 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an ethic I can admire even if it serves my interests. Frankly, Max Stephenson is iffy at best. The rest are no brainers to public administration experts--as was budget theory which was summarily deleted--perhaps the most important topic in PA. On that I would frankly sign my name and stake my reputation--that is what academics do every day. Imagine the power of the summary delete. Imagine it. You can erase the words of another with 5 characters--that sort of power without a review--without a countersignature? This is the sort of governance issue that should constitute the meat of what is meant by "verifiability"--in short, checks and balances--not reputation is what should matter. Why not make all new articles provisional until they have been edited by at least 5 independent persons? Again, I would argue that these are the sorts of administrative ethical processes that need to exist in WP...not some empowered idea of an administrator who relies hugely on discretion. By the way, anyone who knows something about administrative discretion of public bureaucrats--which clearly WP administrators are--would associate the idea with the "not-notable" John A. Rohr and his not-notable contributions to Refounding Public Administration while he was at an non-notable CPAP studying the non-notable theorist Dwight Waldo and other things. Sorry for this and the other rants...they are overboard I admit.Ryan Lanham 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a previous article was deleted you can request its undeletion at Deletion Review, or recreate it so it does a better job of asserting notability and verifiability. Your 5 editor suggestion would be completely unworkable given the amount of vandalism and hoax articles that target wikipedia. The New Pages Patrol is generally a good thing, as you will see if you stick around, but some of the editors there need to have Suggestions for patrollers inked on their monitors in large black letters. Thatcher131 14:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I restored Budget theory, which had been redirected to budget, but not actually merged (and not deleted). Ryan, if you are uncertain about how to best write and format articles on Wikipedia, you can work on them in your user space until they are ready to go out in the main article space. Just make a temporary subpage of your userpage with a slash, like this: User:Ryan Lanham/Dwight Waldo. And always keep in mind that you are not writing for a limited academic audience, but for people who in most cases have not the slightest idea about your field. u p p l a n d 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was uhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Attack films[edit]

prodded by Messedrocker and by Rory096: It doesn't look like this will become a great article. Even with some improvement, I doubt "shark attack movie" is any sort of genre Deprodded and so brought to AfD. The major quality issues concerning the article aside (it is practically unreadable), these are three unnotable made for tv movies. Eusebeus 10:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Saxena[edit]

Non-notable. Creator objected to article being userfied. -- RHaworth 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to make "userfied" ? Ashutoshsaxena 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Stars[edit]

Prodded by Skysmith: self-promotions - see the user name, but deprodded. The article itself happily provides grounds for its own deletion: They are currently unsigned, and at this point have released no material other than demos that appear on their Official website and MySpace page. Eusebeus 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not prepared to endorse the term "bad faith" but it should be noted that most (if not all) of Eusebus' recent AfD nominations are articles that were deprodded by Kappa. I certainly don't think Eusebus is putting a lot of thought or consideration into these nominations. Thatcher131 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to bring as many deprodded articles as I can. It is my bad that I have made it look like a targeted or bad faith campaign. I simply started with the swath deprodded by Kappa (and hardly all of them, only those where I felt the prodder made a prima facie case for prodding that warranted fuller discussion). Eusebeus 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond which, the sequence in the deletion chain is that after a prod tag is removed, the article should be sent up for AfD. Is there some reason doing so suddenly has become a problem? It seems to me that if you disagree that such articles be sent up for AfD, the proper venue for discussion is the various Deletion-related Talk pages, not disrupting AfD itself. WP:POINT. RGTraynor 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchism web resources[edit]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links, and not mere collections of internal links except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. -- Jim Bown 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Moon[edit]

A group of hentai fans whose only claim to notability is that they're translating some games into English. Fails WP:V, since the only sources for their claims are their own website and some other fansites; also fails WP:VAIN, since the page seems to have been created by a member of the group. If this information belongs in Wikipedia, it is as a footnote on the pages for the games in question, not as a separate article. ArcherXRin 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolve (translation group)[edit]

A group of hentai fans whose only claim to notability is that they're translating some games into English. Fails WP:V, since the only sources for their claims are their own website and some other fansites; also fails WP:VAIN, since the page seems to have been created by a member of the group. If this information belongs in Wikipedia, it is as a footnote on the pages for the games in question, not as a separate article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror Moon. ArcherXRin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimson robotics[edit]

plus Gimsonrobotics

Advertising/unnotable. Article was prodded but tag was removed. —Xezbeth 11:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As owner of article, I would like to suggest that you gave me time to extend my article portfolio before you delete the Gimson Robotics entry? I aim to extend detailed entries on the products offered and their uses - I cannot yet find entries for the items I aim to write about - and given time I would ultimately link to other entries from the Gimson Robotics article. Please could you state how this can be considered advertising when my aim is to create a useful free resource eventually. Thank you, Ewan Gimson --Gimsonrobotics 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted How this got through to AfD, I just don't know.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Allen[edit]

troll skx 11:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, per nominator, really. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-editor[edit]

troll skx 11:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the proof of the pudding!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Car and Motors[edit]

Another prod removed by Kappa, so bringing it over to AfD for discussion. The article is largely incoherent, but appears to be some kind of promotional effort of a nn concern. Eusebeus 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a merge to Mittal then so it can get the attention it needs? Eusebeus 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - defaults to keep. No Guru 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Collar (album)[edit]

prodded but removed. Album has not yet been released. Eusebeus 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative statistics[edit]

prod by Grenavitar (unsourced, doesn't show it has a basis) removed, so bringing it to Afd. The content is nonsense, but potential content is covered at Statistics and related articles. Eusebeus 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Onix[edit]

nominating Theory onixienne as well.

Not notable: this author's only book is self-published. See also fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Eddy Onix. _R_ 11:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwu octuplets[edit]

Is being an octuplet enough to warrant inclusion? Delete as being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy_Rue[edit]

The subject (Rue) was a somewhat notorious poster in one single niche usenet group, and a such does not meet the notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) to merit his own Wikipedia entry. Prod removed by author without meaningful objection, so bringing it to AfD. Panzerb0y 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was popular in at least a dozen newsgroups, about a dozen popular forums, and has appeared in local TV and radio, and we're talking about two decades here, he most certainly meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. --72.236.44.169 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tim Rue and the VIC are very famous in the Amiga Community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.191.227 (talk • contribs)

Disagree - delete his entry he is an oxygen thief. Tim Rue is not a programmer (despite his own claims) and he was never a popular figure in the NGs except as a figure of fun. His appearances on his local TV, etc. mean nothing, he self promoted and his claims therein were not critically evaluated. The VIC is merely a set of scripts to automate some tasks - not even innovative since it was actually very similar to a previous Amiga application. He plagued usenet NGs (not just Amiga related) with his rants and was frequently banned by his ISPs. I agree he is well known but noteriety is not notability. The man (by his own admission) is mentally unstable and his claims for the VIC have never been substantiated. He gained his noteriety by abusive and OT posting not by being intelligent and posting worthwhile or interesting comments. If you leave this entry then you only pander to his self delusion that he is some sort of computing guru.

FYI he has also claimed to be a messiah and that the film "The Matrix" is based on his life!). A wacko.

Wikipedia does not have the resources to spend on verifying whether or not the claims others make about me are honest or acts of deception. This goes back to the original article. And simpler things to verify are not being considered, such as how contridictary it is for usent posters and trolls to claim they don't understand and are some sort of authority, yet I can hire a programmer to code the very same thing with no difficulty in communication. The wikipedia entry has been on the side of libel since its beginning and I only ever edited it to provide links to more current references (I said "ok" for a while.) Should I be supprised for it then to evolve to this state? Trolls are easy to manipulate and I did call on them (meat puppets you could claim - there is always a way to twist thing - simple bit flipping abstraction physics.) but not to keep the article. To remove it and it libel bias, if only for its lack of research to uncover honesty. I don't need to vote, the trolls are doing it for me and wikipedia make that possible. And doing it this way, I control it rather than me not know about it, while others use wikipedia to commit libel against me. People want to find me, there is google web, images and groups, and archive.org. Far more coverage than wikipedia could ever allow a single topic. And without the voting control of a few. That's what is real! By its own policies, wikipedia is not allowed to be an authoritive publication, to better cover its butt, perhaps such a statement should be a sub header on articles with potential issues. Even the trolls and bullies of usenet have helped me to establish prior art as in the virtual interaction configuration, by their helping to ingrain my communications about it into the archives.Wikipedia is not an archive, just another of many places I have passed, whether I knew about it or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeseas (talk • contribs)

There is alot of useless junk in usenet, a place where its easy to find those who have nothing better to do than to give others a hard time. But there is also some good stuff. And then there is the usefulness of it regardless of content value, that of multipule generated and integrated time stamps and archiving. The sort of thing that is useful for establishing prior art (re: patents and copyright issues). There are those who claim they don't understand what I'm on about and there are those who do. but the simple fact is, its an identification of unavoidable actions we all, everyone of us, apply in creating and using abstractions. In other words if someone doesn't understand these actions, it can only be due their inability to know what they themselves do. To make these actions available within the environment of computing, as functionality, simple provides the mechanism control points to enable the automation of anything, and by anyone. There is a battle over intellectual property in the form of software patents and this is what is going to break it. But that is "abstraction Physics" where the connection I (Tim Rue) have to it is making damn sure nobody can patent it, due prior art I've established thru usenet, and many other communications. Search google for "Tim rue and abstraction physics" and access the cache of teh wikipedia entry that was deleted under the arguement of it being original research. Why Amiga newsgroups? cause it was teh amiga that had all three primary user interfaces available in a usable and common enough manner that inspired me to toss together a very primitive form of the virtual interaction configuration. Or at least try to only to find there seemed to always be something lacking, but for no good reason. I know plenty enough about computer electronics and programming to know better, as I'm damn well sure others do as well.

A rather small collective of people gave me a hard time on usenet, but in a bigger picture, such as slashdot I have "excellent karma" it goes on and on and still this entry make a faulty claim that my posting style is difficult if not impossible for others to understand. Why? Further more the code to one of the VIC commands "IQ" can be run with a switch (the existance of a filename (see source code) that enable one to watch what the program does when it is run. After some simple editing of the arexx documentation for imageFX (and image process program), using IQ I was able to set in motion teh examples given in the documentation. QAlso see my comment the the discussion link to the article of my name.

As I have said, I'm findable thru google groups, web and images as well as archive.org. I don't need wikipedia, I didn't put myself here, especially if wikipedia is going to be used against its own policies to commit libel against me. I can except "computer specialist" as I am by default the leading authority on abstraction physics, but I don't crank out enough code (regardless of my education) to call myself a programmer in the traditional or old hat sense. T.Rue 03:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Kubik[edit]

Prodded by Quatloo as 802 google results returned for this person -- vanity page. Another deprod by Kappa, so bringing it to AfD. This is almost certainly a self-authored page, and while that does not disqualify it for inclusion, the subject lacks notability. Eusebeus 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge into Anchorage School District. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in the Anchorage School District[edit]

Prodded as Wikipedia is not a list repository and Possibly non-noteable, uses only one source (possible copyvio). It is in fact an exact replica of this list [[10]] cited at the bottom of the page. Eusebeus 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McCaughey septuplets[edit]

Is being a septuplet enough to warrant inclusion? Delete as being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 12:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravé dans la roche[edit]

Prodded by Urthogie as Group might be notable, but album isn't. Also, please note that the claim that its been criticized by the French government is uncited. Prod removed by Kappa, so bringing it to AfD. Relevant points could be merged to Sniper Eusebeus 12:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to clean up? Also, you don't need to give an explanation when removing a prod tag. David Sneek 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to, but I consider it to be part of etiquette that when you say "I contest this deletion", that as part of that you explain why you think the article has merit. And when I said clean up, I should have more properly said Insert more content, because the article itself is a little sparse as it stands. Kuzaar 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billi Bruno[edit]

According to Imdb, subject has only appeared in one episode. Delete for being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the AFD was based on the info from IMDB, and other sources has proved otherwise, I hereby withdraw the AFD. Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Khaled[edit]

Prodded by SchmuckyTheCat as non-notable; prod removed so bringing it to AfD. Due to release a single album, but not until later this year. Eusebeus 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's got an Allmusic page, though it doesn't have much info beyond production credits for Terror Squad and Fabolous. He's also gotten media coverage in The Village Voice and Vibe, among other places, and while his album isn't out, the first single has apparently already been released. -Colin Kimbrell 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little harsh.-Colin Kimbrell 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tang[edit]

Not notable enough for inclusion, does not pass WP:BIO in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's our Haug![edit]

TV show that appears not to exist. Zero on google and tv.com. Weregerbil 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summit avenue[edit]

Page is vanity/self-promotion for a small-town band. A Google search for "Summit Avenue" confirms the subject does not qualify as "of note" per Wikipedia guidelines ka1iban 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbo War[edit]

Describes a game played at a public school in Canada; the article appears to be written for the purpose of promoting an otherwise non-notable phenomenon. No Google hits. Delete. Choess 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dewar[edit]

The subject of this page does not seem prominent enough to appear in Wikipedia. Although the article has no references, I found the subject's homepage via Google. Dewar describes himself there as a "choral director, organist and conductor" but he has not held a major position with any well-known orchestra, choir or cathedral. His career as summarized on his homepage is no more distinguished than those of hundreds of other professional musicians working in the churches of England, none of whom appear in Wikipedia. No other Wikipedia pages link to this article. The history of this article shows that most of the content was created by a user "Drjad" who no longer exists. Other content was added by anonymous IPs. Grover cleveland 22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Thryduulf 16:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Zhi Min[edit]

A 14-year-old from Singapore who is apparently a super-genious of some sort, and also a "Jedeye Knight." This page is vanity, the person isn't notable, and there are certainly some hoax elements to it. Delete —LrdChaos 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-shop[edit]

Non-notable new web-based company, no claim approaches WP:CORP, no Alexa rank. Prod removed without comment. Weregerbil 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepover theory[edit]

Pure original research, unverifiable. No references given, no notability asserted. soUmyaSch 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel children[edit]

Prodded as neologism. Prod removed, so bringing it to AfD. Google returns 168 hits [[14]]. Term is neologistic - and exclusive to the Caribbean - although was used in print in Newsweek. Once. In 1996. Doesn't seem to have caught on and this is not the venue for its promotion. Eusebeus 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sword productions[edit]

nn company/website, contested prod. They seem to have a nice website with obviously homemade video on it; I couldn't find the website on a google search. Probable vanity, created by Jtbelliott (talk · contribs); the chairman of Broken sword productions is Joshua Elliott.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EG Toons[edit]

nn website/comic, probable vanity, contested prod. Google search on "EG toons" could not come up with anything related to this, and google search for "broken sword productions" didn't yield anything either. (I have also nominated Broken sword productions, created by the same author, for deletion.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic factor[edit]

Delete Prod tag taken down, so I've brought this to afd. It is a nn 1 month old website and deserves deletion J.J.Sagnella 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scyle[edit]

Dicdef and/or neologism. Delete. Andy Saunders 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the opening line of the article is an obsolete word; but would you transwiki the rest of the article as well? Andy Saunders 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norstar Boats[edit]

Non notable company; only 3100 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectVideo[edit]

Non notable Tony Bruguier 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Konundrum[edit]

While elaborate and detailed in its explanation, this article makes no actual claim to notability, and I'm having a hard time imagining one. It seems at best to be a piece of MITiana, but I don't think it's really relevant enough to mention there. I think this is a vanity page for the game's inventor. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twins-Yankees rivalry[edit]

This article is about a fairly non-notable "rivalry," if such a rivalry even really exists at all. As a Yankee fan living in Minnesota, I can honestly say that this "rivalry" probably only exists as part of a larger "everyone wants to beat the Yankees" thing, which was previously mentioned on the New York Yankees page but now seems to be missing. At any rate it doesn't warrant its own article. RPIRED 15:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Huh? A Twins-Yankees rivalry? (This just goes to show up the whole innately POV-haggard nature of sports rivalry sections.) RGTraynor 15:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By this standard, again, you could call every baseball team a "rival" of every other team. Playing a couple of playoff series against each other doesn't create a "rivalry" except perhaps in the minds of a few people. It's certainly not widely noted. -Sparklemotion 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of theater architects[edit]

Prodded as 1 year old list never expanded beyond 2 entries, one of them a redlink and deprodded by Kappa so bringing it to AfD. This classification doesn't really exist, so this list would seem to be effectively spurious. Eusebeus 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer size[edit]

Incoherent. Utterly unencyclopaediac soUmyaSch 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantia Technologies[edit]

nn Tony Bruguier 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Nowhere[edit]

NN, WP:BIO, WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Soulmates[edit]

This is patent self-promotion of a book. (Using three different user IDs but one of them claims pd-self for the book cover image.) Is the book notable? -- RHaworth 06:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Wiki can't end up with articles on a million books. Besides which, books which have a niche market can be notable within that and not have mass appeal. The numbers game is only one yardstick. This book has been given a good accolade in the review of it. The current article is not good, I agree. Tyrenius 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not truth. Whilst it is true that this book exists, you need to (at least) assert what makes it notable. Batmanand | Talk 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it has recognition within the market that would be interested in the genre, as in the review: "by far the most outstanding piece of work I have read in the genré of soul-mates." Interestingly Notability talks of authors, "who have written books with an audience of 5,000" (as opposed to sales—which are less than "audience" figures). The web site for the book has had 15,955 unique visitors to date, so the author may qualify for an article, even if the book doesn't. Tyrenius 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Audience is usually defined as people who have read the book, or studied it, or in some way has significant interaction with it. Going to a website is not significant interaction. So let us - conservatively - divide the number of website views by ten, and then - liberally - triple the sales (cos people might buy it anyway). Even on that measure, we are not yet up to 5,000. Batmanand | Talk 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Audiences come in all types and some are very inattentive. All we know is that there are as of today's date 16017 "unique" visitors, and 17333 including reloads. The latter figure using your calculations actually comes to 5199. But, hey, let's not get all legalistic about it. The book might even help someone to find their soulmate - that would be useful. Tyrenius 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is because it's McKinley, not McKinlay. She seems well enough qualified on her website, and this is Awareness magazine. Notability is not the only, nor a rigid, criterion for inclusion.
Tyrenius 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I still have to agree with the nom. Sorry. — RJH 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. My only reason for wanting to keep this is the review by the good Dr McKinley, who is established in this field, and rates the work:"“The Science of Soulmates” is by far the most outstanding piece of work I have read in the genré of soul-mates. Henderson literally takes off where Redfield’s Celestine Prophecy ended, exploring some of the most challenging studies on life and love I have seen." This evaluation to me makes it notable in a different way to the usual standard. I would like to think Wiki has the flexibility to take each case on its own merits. It is not vanity (any more) as I have copy-edited the article. I expect consensus will be to delete, and, if so, full accept this. However, I have to be honest, that I would like to retain this article. Tyrenius 16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The web site for the book has had 15,955 unique visitors to date, so the author may qualify for an article, even if the book doesn't. Tyrenius 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)" Perhaps just change the title of the article to the Authors name if this is the case?[reply]

comment 16,000 visitors since 3 June 2003 isn't really that amazing. That's really only about 5,500 hits a year. Not exactly notable. IrishGuy 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_American_Lackey[edit]

nn. There is no Alexa ranking. Google gives a couple of hundred hits, many of which are due to this article. I have yet to find any sign of notability and the article itself simply states that it is growing in popularity with nothing to back it up. IrishGuy 08:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Magazine[edit]

Single sentence article about a small non notable regional magazine. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside Asian Boyz[edit]

non-notable gang with only 19 unique goggle hits [20] mostly Wikipedia related. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre chronological reading order[edit]

Fancruft, blatant copyvio and above all, unnecesary, considering we don't apply it to other comic characters. Kusonaga 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be much more useful to just note significant issues, rather than giving a whole chronological reading order. Better yet, a link to the page it's from would be just as a handy, and wouldn't clutter the wiki. Kusonaga 06:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skimi[edit]

It sounds like it should be a word, but quick websearches don't give it much support Dangherous 21:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shourov[edit]

Bengali slang term. It's in wrong alphabet for a start Dangherous 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaaa[edit]

A slang interjection. I doubt even Wiktionary want it, although they do have similar articles like aarrgh, rowrbazzle and shazbot Dangherous 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete no claim to notability/lacked context. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3c student ministries[edit]

Non notable organization soUmyaSch 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great plague of norway[edit]

Prodded as orphan article by anon IP 9 months old, never expanded, no sources. Deprodded by Kappa so bringing it to AfD. In addition to the reasons cited by prod, I would add that this: (1) the term does not exist; (2) the article is factually incorrect (there is no way to measure the highest mortality levels of the Black Death in Europe, but given its deadliness in cities, the highest death rates were recorded in more urbanised areas, such as the various Italian city states. (3) Finally, the plague in Norway should be covered at History_of_Norway. This should not be merged since the information is inaccurate. Eusebeus 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OUTniagara[edit]

Notability not established; 53 google hits; Special:Whatlinkshere/OUTniagara is empty; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Cutler. Delete Qviri (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mack 9[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Previously prod'ed by Jahiegel; notice removed with no reason or claim to notability given. Possible hoax or exaggeration (born in 1988 and has multiple children... in Surrey, BC?) discospinster 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordancee with "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" from WP:MUSIC the site is eligable to be kept up. It follow the "...most prominent representative of...the local scene of a city..."


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zimmerman[edit]

Prodded as WP:BIO -- minor political figure, prod removed, welcome to AfD. He ran, he lost, he's doing his Masters. Eusebeus 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And yet here you are already, mere hours after the nomination. I also feel the need to make a few points:
  • I checked the page randomly. There are several policy guidelines that where ignored that are listed on the Articles for Deletion page DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO is not a Wikipedia policy, just a criteria. Immediately falling back on legalisms instead of actual arguments is generally a bad sign. Ignoring the guidelines, ignoring the reasoning behind the guidelines, and ignoring the precedents of following the guidelines: these don't help your case.
  • I did not fall back on "legalisms", I merely stated a comment that exists on the WP:BIO page. If I have a policy violation then I expect to be notified and/or to have that violation fixed. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To claim that those who lose elections are not important is silly. Doesn't even rise to the level of argument.
  • I was trying to be brief. The political process relies on people who come forth and discuss the issues. Those who fail to gain the support of the voters still play an important part in the shaping of public policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source. So why would you only include references to the winners of elections? It makes no sense. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.
Having basic standards of notability is what keeps this place from becoming the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying that Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information. However, Wikipedia is also supposed to be unbiased. If Wikipedia will only contain information about the winners of election, it can hardly be said to be unbiased. Should every person on the face of the Earth have a wikipedia page? Absolutely not. However, those to take part in the political process, win or lose, play an important part. Obviously Wikipedia agrees that those who run and win are worthy of mention. The Wikipedia 2004 House Results page not only mentions those candidates who ran in all races; it also links to their pages. If Wikipedia did not want pages for people who run for office then why does that page link to each and every candidate? (Not all have pages that have been started. However, all of them have links). DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The losers of national elections are deserving of mention. However, that does not mean that each one deserves an entire article devoted to their person. As far as I'm concerned, the only significant information I'd want to know pertaining to losers of elections who are otherwise non-notable is their political party and the voting results by tally and percentage, which is most easily listed in a collective article such as the one to which you linked. If you could update the article to meet WP:V and WP:BIO by noting references, especially those to "significant media coverage" as has been mentioned, then I would change my vote to keep. On a side note, my high school civics teacher ran for state senate as an independent party candidate. He ran quite a campaign, and received a significant number of votes, but lost (as is usually the case with independent party candidates). All of his students, including myself, thought it was quite a remarkable event given the amount of effort he put into campaigning. Despite my opinion of him, which is that he was a great teacher and person and would have made an excellent state senator, I do not think him notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The same goes for you; it's nothing personal. Rishodi 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the people who participated in Congressional elections are not "deserving" of a Wikipedia page then why does the 2004 Congressional Race section of Wikipedia include links to each and every page belonging to each and every candidate in that race? I could understand your point IF that page was written and only included textual references of the candidates. However, the page includes links to Wikipedia pages of each and every person who ran. Please tell me what "significant media coverage" is and I will endeavor to link to each and every article that is available. DanielZimmerman 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an editor of that page made each person's name a link does not mean that each one of them is notable enough for his or her own article in an encyclopedia. I suggest you read WP:BLP and the other guideline references on this page, and find as many credible sources to cite in your article as possible. The only way this article will not be deleted is if you prove notability using multiple verifiable sources. As the article currently stands, I would guess that there is some media coverage on the election information presented in the first paragraph, but as for the last two paragraphs, if the information presented there cannot be verified, then it is vanity information and should be removed. Rishodi 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would the editor of that page make each person's name linked if the editor did not think all where deserving of a Wikipedia page? The page can be created with plain text for the names of candidates and when one of those candidates has a page that is added, the Election page could then be edited. On the verifiable issue, I have just added some pages linking to several different sources verifying certain facts stated on the election. Some of those pages not only mention the races, but they also mention the information in the next paragraphs. (For example, articles referring to the election mention the fact that I am seeking my Masters in Computer Science). DanielZimmerman 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking is a common problem. --Ajdz 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "significant media attention"? Who defines it? On who should be creating the page about me, I could have created a Wikipedia name that was not my own and then pretended to be someone else when I make edits to Wikipedia but I have nothing to hide. If you can point out points in the article where I have been "vain" then point them out and i will edit them (or edit them yourself). It seems to be "odd" at the very least to think that had I posted my own article with an ambiguous Wikipedia name and pretended to not be me that this would be an issue. If my honesty is a detrement to my contributions on Wikipedia, then what does that say about Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your "vanity" is evident in the sole fact that you did indeed write a page about yourself. See WP:AUTO. If you are deemed notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, then inevitably someone else would write an article about you. This alone is not a reason for deletion, however it certainly does not help your case. Rishodi 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had intended on writing pages on every candidate in the 2004 Race for Louisiana's First Congressional District. Unfortunately many of them had taken their own websites down as sources. I still intend on doing so based on the news reports of the election. Again, the Wikipedia page devoted to the 2004 Election provides for pages that discuss ALL people who ran, not just the winners. DanielZimmerman 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You contend that every losing candidate is notable enough for their own article; however, given the results of this AfD page alone, this is obviously not the consensus of Wikipedia's editors.
  • I will again point out that if I had been "sneeky" I could have created a user name on Wikipedia that was not my name. Then nobody would have known who created the article. So my honesty is causing the "vanity" issue because I was honest in presenting who I was to the Wikipedia community. If the decision is made to delete because "I" created my own article then all you are doing is forcing people to be dishonest when creating pages where they have something to do with the subject of the article. If I was being vain in the article itself then I would see the point of vanity. DanielZimmerman 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you're completely missing the point. Have you even read WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO? It does not exist to encourage users to be dishonest, it exists to discourage users from including information about themselves that cannot be verified, is not notable, or is not written in neutral point of view. Had you been "sneaky", you probably still would have been discovered eventually. I imagine that the personal information you have included in the last two paragraphs is very difficult to verify, and that clue alone suggests that the editor who provided that information was someone personally connected to the article's subject. The issue is not your honesty, it's the fact that you wrote an article about yourself, regardless of the means you used to do so. Rishodi 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have listed articles that verify information in all of the paragraphs, not just the candidate paragraph. Some facts are verified on Wikipedia itself (the fact that I am an alumni of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute is verified on Wikipedia. Other facts, like me seeking my Masters Degree in Computer Science are verified in the articles pertaining to my running for office. Everything that I have put up there should already be verified by the information that I just linked to. If there are small bits of information that are not verifiable then I understand removing those small pieces but not the whole article. But the vast majority of information in all paragraphs has been verified and none of the information has "POV" issues. Those two issues are Wikipedia policy and I HAVE followed them. Notability is NOT Wikipedia policy. However, someone thought I was notable enough to be listed under the Notable Alumni of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be a place where people can do research. I find it much more plausible that someone would want to get information about former congressional candidates than about an Inanimate Carbon Rod. DanielZimmerman 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its no wonder why so few people run for office or even have an interest in politics. The way you people trivialize those who take part in a major election is really disgusting. What % do you think makes a candidate "notable" enough to qualify for your approval? I was PROUD of my campaign, not necessarily because of the results but because I was able to help victims of Hurricane Ivan by collecting goods to be donated to them. The ONLY reason I dont have that information on the page currently is because there was no news coverage of that event so under Wikipedias policy it would not be verifiable. But people are willing to let campaigns for national office to be forgotten because of some %. I also want to state, yet again, that if Wikipedia allows for one candidate to be listed then it should allow for all candidates to be listed otherwise it will be seen as biased towards certain candidates and against others. DanielZimmerman 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that this "vote" be overlooked because of a current disagreement between myself and William on the topic of Sean Hannity. DanielZimmerman 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Disagreements" are common on WP, if fact, "disagreement" are probably par for the course here. It is only through mutual, logical dialogue and constructive debate that meaningful articles will be created. If we all were constantly in agreement, there would be no need for "talk pages", "AfDs", "RfCs", etc. I submit that a "disagreement" at another article is not a valid reason to discount my opinion regarding this one. I constantly monitor the AfD page, nominate AfDs and vote in AfDs in my areas of expertise often. Please, per the WP guidelines Mr. Zimerman, assume good faith concerning my ability to be objective.--WilliamThweatt 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not assume good faith in my edit of the Sean Hannity page, describing the change as "petty". Your entrance into this discussion was made only after you made that comment. Had you assumed good faith towards me perhaps I would have been able to assume good faith on your part. You have also stated that you will go back and revise the Sean Hannity article tomorrow based on nothing but your own opinion and not based on any attempt to reach a consensus FIRST and have shown that you will not be acting in good faith in that discussion. You have shown that when it comes to the Sean Hannity article you will not be attempting any "mutual, logical dialogue" or any "constructive debate" and that you will unilaterally remove my addition to the Sean Hannity article when I have provided multiple, verifiable, sources that show Sean Hannity incorrectly representing the Preamble. Why would I beleive that you would act in good faith in this discussion as well? DanielZimmerman 23:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, you are obfuscating the facts. I described the incident you wished to include as "petty", not your efforts themselves. I have made every effort on that talk page to present logical arguments and rebuttals but you refuse to engage in discussion and simply state the same thing over and over. I haven't reverted your POV because I refuse (good faith) to engage in an edit war. As for "unilaterally", I offered to submit (good faith) to mediation, you have not responded and therefore leave me no other choice.--WilliamThweatt 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is about more than just WP:BLP, it is also about notability. Perhaps it seems vain that I am making a stand on the notability issue on the article that I wrote about myself. However, I personally do not care if I have a Wikipedia page about me. My life will go on just fine without it and if it is the opinion that my page should be deleted then so be it. That does not change the fact that I strongly disagree with those who wish to delete ANY article just because the topic of the article is not deemed "notable" by that user's standards. My proposed compromise would be that someone else should go through the article and delete all of the information that is not verifiable, and making sure that the remaining information is follows the NPOV policy. And i will only stick my head in to the page in the manner deemed appropriate by the BLP polcy. We can then go to the other places like WP:BIO and WP:AfD and start the discussion over there as to what political races and candidates should qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia.DanielZimmerman 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar of the Hill People[edit]

Prodded as This is a very minor (i.e., non-notable) SNL skit, prod removed, bringing to AfD. Reiterate reason from the prod: More Cowbell this is not. Eusebeus 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical comparison of economy cars 2006[edit]

Prodded by R3m0t, deprodded, so brought to AfD. This looks more like something from Consumer Reports than an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, what is the long term usefulness of this information? In 2010, who is going to care how 3 arbitrarily selected vehicles stacked up? Why just these 3 vehicles? Where is the 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid? I imagine there are at least a few other cars that meet this criteria. Beyond that, where did this definition of "economy car" come from? What is to stop me from arbitrarily deciding that "economy cars" only need to get 30 mpg and add another 20 vehicles to the list... or decide that hybrids are not included and remove the 3 cars currently listed? This concept is just not in any way maintainable.--Isotope23 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenicea[edit]

Non-notable website - original research. Deprodded.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gray (sculptor)[edit]

Contested prod by RHaworth who noted vanity - author is Bruce Gray so bringing it to AfD. Clearly a self-authored page, although on its own that is simply distasteful, not actual grounds for deletion. Eusebeus 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep with strong recommendation to merge to Races in the Warcraft universe as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal (Warcraft)[edit]

Prodded by Nifboy as minor warcraft monster and then deprodded, so here it is at AfD for a full airing of views. Eusebeus 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Proto as a nn group (CSD A7). --Hetar 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bepop[edit]

Prodded by Bruce1ee as Non-notable band - no information provided to satisfy WP:MUSIC and then deprodded so bringing it to AfD. Eusebeus 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me to Your Leader (Hawkwind album)[edit]

Prodded as No indication that WP:BAND is met (which is patently false) and then deprodded. Album's notability, however, is not yet established, as the content and style of the article make rather clear, since it has attracted no cleanup. Eusebeus 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept with merge tag. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket broker[edit]

Prodded by JSIN as unverifiable, seems to be pushing a POV, unencyclopaedic, reads more like a guide, covered at Ticket resale, deprodded, and so bringing it to AfD. Eusebeus 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Llama[edit]

Internet drama neologism, non-encyclopedic, dictionary definition. Christopherlin 17:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep all as per the closes of fuddlemark and Sushigeek to the related discussions. In particular, endorsement by the proposer for deletion of the essay Wikipedia:Fancruft is not an adequate reason to give for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I suggest that those who believe that these articles are on minor subjects not worthy of their own articles consult the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and consider the recommendations there--to wit, to consider merging them. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, GAT-X105 Strike Gundam, GAT-X105E Strike Noir, GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam, GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam, GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam, ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam, GFAS-X1 Destroy, TS-MA2 Moebius[edit]

More giant robots from the Gundam series, WP:CRUFT. I propose allowing editors till the end of this deletion discussion to transwiki to the Gundam wiki, and then deleting. Brian G. Crawford 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are several other debates currently on groups of Gundam robot articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam.

What is the point of deleting all these articles? What would that acheive? Absolutely nothing at all.

  • While I'm at it, let me point out that none of these articles have sources. However, the amount of specific detail on all of these robots makes me think a specific published source exists, which actually is WORSE: this might be massive copyright infringement. Mangojuice 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew somebody would accuse me of bad process, it was just a matter of time. I followed the precedent of the mass deletion of Polynesian mythology articles to avoid the problems that those faced. Hey, I tried to do this right. Brian G. Crawford
Comment Are you kidding? You collect a hefty bundle of related articles, and then divide the entries from said bundle through no resonably discernable criteria into multiple AfD projects. The thing is, the articles you've split up have no reason being split up, and if even one of these AfDs pulls through, we can readily await your attempting to delete still more material (rather, previously kept material...) while citing your one success as precedent. Would anyone realy be surprised?--KefkaTheClown 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: as the person who brought those Polynesian myth articles here, I can tell you that it's a bad move. It was a lot of work, and they all had to later be re-submitted individually. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying you love my argument, but you can't stand the way I make it. That's very odd. Brian G. Crawford 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get snippy. I was just making a proposal, and I didn't expect it to be carried out blindly. Calm down! Brian G. Crawford 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that it is hard to AGF when you say things like that. Kotepho 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user has fourteen edits, four to AfD. Brian G. Crawford 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user's edits are almost entirely AfD nominations and PROD tags. He has few actual edits of article content than the user whose position he's trying to undermine. Redxiv 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check under User:BrianGCrawfordMA, another username I used to use, if you doubt my credentials. I've written articles on real-world subjects, so forgive me if I find giant cartoon robots unencyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you have TWO Usernames? Isn't that going against policy of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? It's extra amusing to see person who break policy to try delete stuff that going against essay L-Zwei 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having multiple accounts is not against WP:SOCK unless the accounts are being used in an abusive way (for example, if he were to vote with both on the same AfD). The policy is somewhat hard to understand, you might want to look at the proposed revision linked from the talk page, which explains it in a more lucid way without significantly changing the basic idea. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but "donkey punch" and "Dirty Sanchez" don't seem any more notable than giant cartoon robots in my eyes. Redxiv 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you overlooked Dartmouth College and Appalachian English -- though perhaps you were hoping no one would notice. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see those two articles deleted, and I nominated them myself. If you want to personally attack me and question and second-guess everything in my edit history, take it to my talk page. I'm sorry you don't like it that I'm taking all your favorite cartoon articles to AfD, but that's no reason to be a dick. Brian G. Crawford 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insult people by called him a dick rather than actual arguments is a worst sign in any discussion.L-Zwei 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might not actually be an insult. See WP:DICK. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COOL kids... everyone needs to take a deep breath.--Isotope23 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you only have 3 edits KefkaTheClown I'll assume you don't know better... but read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA... then follow it.--Isotope23 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, and duely noted. While attempting to draw attention language I interpreted as being condescending, I ultimately disregarded the criteria of decorum outlined by Wikipedia as well as my own personal standards. For that, I am sorry, but none the less, I stand by my assertion that dividing these articles into multiple AfDs is unessesary, and only serves to hinder the overall process.--KefkaTheClown 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But these things need to satisfy WP:V, and don't. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding comments that are similar to previous comments as an IP editor will most likely cause you to be suspected as a sock puppet. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of machines which were only piloted by minor or nameless characters, such as the standard model GINN. While I think that merging the machines with the appropriate pilot would be a good alternative, there are some that just can't be done with such a play. AmuroNT1 21:14 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The bigger problem with such a solution is that we would then have multiple instances of repeating data... or rather, multiple identical articles describing a mobile suit on the page of anyone whose piloted one over the course of the series. What happens then when someone decides to edit said article? Correct something, is it then the user's responsibility to make the same change to every single article? Wasteful! If the articles continue to exist, they should remain in a singular form. A better method (if a mandate to do so becomes more convincing that the one presented here...) would be to create large articles labled 'Mobile weapons of the Earth Aliance,' and 'Mobile weapons of the ZAFT forces' that sport the article's contents in a more compact format, organized based on which faction produced the weapon in question...--KefkaTheClown 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you leave proper comments????

-I,am a fan and I just came upon this article by refereal most of these facts can be confirmed if you go to the official gundam web page-http://www.gundamofficial.com/ as for some of the newer ones they can be confirmed at http://www.seed-stargazer.net/ the new O.N.A serias starring some time in june. Uhm....i dont know much about wiki but from what i gathered you can put them all in 1 fan section??? which would make it much easier to navigate and it would save space = )!!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chen-Benson Theorem[edit]

Please do; one or two well-chosen examples might do wonders. If you can also clarify and document the name of this method (Who is Chen? Who is this Benson? Why is this a "theorem" and not a "method"? Has it been published?) it might lead to a "wham-bam-keep-this-theoram" victory in this debate. Or not. LambiamTalk 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is the original contributor of the article in question.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wrote that I was the author, there's no need to reiterate. KBenson33 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33[reply]
  • Comment - Also, KBenson33, I'm not trying to be argumentative, so please don't take this the wrong way, but here's a nickle's worth of free advice: the phrase "my article" could be taken to mean one has "ownership issues". It's usually better to avoid such usage here on WP.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By "my article" I simply meant that I was the one who originally contributed the majority of the information to the site, I did not mean to imply ownership. And it's hard to believe you're not trying to be argumentative when shortly after contributing my first entry to Wikipedia I have several people jumping down my back trying to get it deleted, rather than helping it become better or more significant. It's a shame, I'd assume such a vast community would be a bit nicer to newcomers. KBenson33 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33[reply]
  • Comment - K, please don't take things so personal because it's not meant as such. I'm sorry your first experience hasn't been so pleasant. I sincerely hope you have better results next time. We're all just trying to make WP relevant, encyclopedic and the best it can be. It's not about not being "nice", it's just that there are criteria to be met for articles on WP. This is the process.--WilliamThweatt 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advancement Resources, LLC[edit]

nn company Hirudo 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Superpowers—Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

This is obviously the opinion of a single individual, not even getting anywhere close as being widely believed Warniats 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Yep, just wait for when Lichtenstein or Bhutan get those Orbital Mind Control Lasers from the aliens and take over the world, you'll see!!! RGTraynor 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number1hater[edit]

This is possibly a job for cleanup but it appears to be vanity. After numerous edits it still has horrible grammar/spelling and claims seem exaggerated Tombom23 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Christian Apologetics[edit]

Article is non-notable, original material, no sources, and possible vanity. It has no importance. The users to add to it/created it only make edits relating to the person who is claimed to be the founder. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true. Look up "integrated apologetics", too. This concept is very well known. Books have been written on it. --Keith Hernandez 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
And unfortunately, none of those books have contributed to this article, or have been cited in any way. --Hetar 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you rather just delete the article because it isn't as good as it could be? You must be a hardcore deletionist. If the topic truly interests you, as you say, then develop the entry. --Keith Hernandez 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertex/Face/Edge relation in a convex polyhedron[edit]

Apparently the same thing as Euler characteristic (i don't understand a word, so I can't vouch for that). An anon removed the prod with the edit summary of "(This should go to AfD not PROD)." Rory096(block) 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do the 'Ronaldinho'[edit]

Fancruft, dicdef, fork from the soccer player, unlikely search term, there's just too much wrong. Delete; perhaps transwiki if it's not too much of a WP:NEO violation.Alba 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preceeding comment was left by 84.66.198.59, there is no user called "freeofchange". It might be worth running a CheckUser on Blacdize, as 84.66.198.59 might be the same account. Gwernol 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbSynthe[edit]

Despite the fact that this article has been here for a while, I cannot find a real assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC in the article. Sure, they were invited to play at some festival, but that doesn't count. Unless someone proves that these guys really are notable, this should be deleted. Grandmasterka 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Gear[edit]

This appears to be more of an OR essay than an encyclopedia article. I tried to find a suitable subject to redirect to, but couldn't come up with anything. Prod removed by anonymous editor without comment, so I am bringing it here for community discussion. --Hetar 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If not candidate for copyvio per statements below, then delete as an OR essay per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We thought it might be advantageous to grant info access on our materials.
There is education/misunderstanding/negotiation ongoing, involving permissions, etc. See User_talk:Military Tactical Gear The Military Tactical Gear article was deleted for copyvio. Does reviewing the ongoing discussion change the need for same for this article? Shenme 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Web[edit]

One-line mention of The Holy See's website. If it had any content, I'd say it should be merged into The Holy See, but there's nothing to merge. Also, "Vatican Web" doesn't seem to be an official name. Following WP:WEB guidelines, "Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization." AKADriver 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article GODDESSY. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was merge and redirect to Stephanie Adams. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issa-Salwe, A.M.[edit]

Not notable at all. 14 hits for the title, only 192 if you take off the "A.M." Rory096(block) 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TPC at The Woodlands[edit]

Nothing notable. Nv8200p talk 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebcamCash[edit]

Spamvertisement that fails both WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 58,223. --Hetar 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, discounting two anons whose first and only edits are to this page; even if just registered voters are counted it's no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Hall (2nd nomination)[edit]

Previously deleted here: [29]. There is no substantially new claim from the deleted version that would meet WP:MUSIC. Really this hinges on one thing: Do you consider the "2004 BMI John Lennon Scholarship Competition" win and "Grand Prize Winners for Session II of the 2005 John Lennon Songwriting Contest" to meet Has won or placed in a major music competition? I don't personally see the John Lennon Songwriting/Scholarship competitions as "major music competitions", but this could be open to interpretation so I brought it here instead of PROD. One could also consider the Albino Blacksheep claim, but at least in my opinion, that falls short of WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Retail Edge[edit]

An internal (supplier-retailer) promotion or incentive system lies to far beyond WP:CORP it's not even funny anymore. I very much doubt the article could be meaningfuly salvaged even if the promotion was notable at all (which it isn't). Coren 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirela Roznoveanu[edit]

This article was created by user MirelaR, presumably the subject of the article. Speedy delete tage was removed once by author before anonymous user 128.122.190.238 applied {hangon} with no explanation (as of yet) on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. MirelaR then blanked the page. I've attempted to explain to the author that her article might violate WP:VAIN, and that she should move all the relevant information to her user page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Share the road midsouth[edit]

A worthy cause, but not a WP:WEB candidate. Buh bye. Alba 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carz unlimited[edit]

This is an advertisement for a used car lot. Charles 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmonkeys[edit]

a neologism developed "primarily online." Delete per WP:NOT --Hetar 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms. Its also worth noting that the policy on verifiability clearly states that Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are verifiability not truth. Good luck, Gwernol 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the entry removing any references to online speculation, and have cited a source which links to a heated discussion between so called 'chipmonkeys' and genuine musicians. I believe the article should remain as the it is the most plausable explanation of the term, and its deletion could mean less mature articles are posted in its place. 204080 22:51, 24 April 2006

A link to a forum discussion is hardly a reliable source. --Hetar 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's as reliable as is possible to link to, as it is a term which has been coined by people during discussions, some online, some not. I still believe the term requires some form of explanation. 204080 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. The subject is a popular gravure model and User:Rankler's edit answers any questions of verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Kobayashi[edit]

Prodded by Miljoshi on 6 Apr, but prod was removed by 132.205.45.110 for no particularly good reason ("AfD it if you want to delete it"). Author proceeded to blank the page on the 14th, where it's stood since. This would have gone through as a prod if the anon hadn't de-prodded it (as they have done to a number of other articles), and it would probably have been a speedy G7 (author request) if various authors hadn't modified it since. As it stands, there's little choice but to AFD this. Per Miljoshi's prod, the article doesn't assert notability and doesn't cite references.

I've added several external links and some extra information to the body. There's little more I can do with my meagre understanding of Japanese, but at the very least I think it meakes the information available here verifiable. Basic biographical information is available at her talent agency/groups profile, including lists of appearances and product releases (the latter of which are available at the Amazon links).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Ultima IX per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima IX: Redemption[edit]

I prodded this one back on the 21st as a non-notable fan project, but 132.205.45.110 removed the prod on this one as well (see the AFD on Mao Kabayashi above), stating that "This should go to AfD not PROD". So it's here. It's still a non-notable fan project which doesn't appear to have publicly released anything yet - so let's delete it. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorthos Dragon 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Springett[edit]

Apparent autobiography, non-notable, article claims "published works" but only google hits are from his personal web site and Wikipedia. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Accurizer 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungalist[edit]

Non-notable blog. Alexa rank of 4,396,110. Delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per WP:NOT. If the original authors would like the text of the article retrieved for them I would be happy to oblige per WP:BITE. --Cyde Weys 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial High School Memories (Hedwig Village, Texas)[edit]

Unencyclopedic: "This page is designed to highlight the various memories students have from high school." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a publisher of original thought, a free webhost, or for things made up in school one day. Delete (or maybe userfy,) merging anything suitable into Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas) -- AJR | Talk 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


and 137.113.171.9 -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkril only edits are to the article in debate on nomination day -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited outside this AFD -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited outside this AFD -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited outside this AFD -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkril only edits are to the article in debate on nomination day -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a complete re-work of the main high school page in the works at the moment, so please avoid personal attacks or accusations of bias, . &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 06:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment And if this article by some miracle stays, I'm starting an article about memories from MY high school days, including Mr. Hector (who swore a lot, but was a nice guy), Mrs. Weiselberg (total bitch), and one of my classmates, Brandon, whose seemed to only say "DON'T YOU WORRY ABOUT IT!!!" for our whole senior year. Seriously, none of this is notable. There is a place for this kind of stuff, but not here. -- SonicAD (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, as repost, deleted several times. — xaosflux Talk 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 4[edit]

Delete crystal ball article that was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man 4) and has now been recreated. _-M o P-_ 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Sango123 (e) 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody Episodes[edit]

There is already a page with a more complete list of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episodes Jesussaves 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Roentgen[edit]

If you get down to the bottom it turns out he's involved with a television program of some sort. This is still not sufficiently encyclopedic, and 99% of the information in the article is unverifiable (see the relevant policy). Chick Bowen 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep with a recommendation to merge to Mexican Revolution. Deletion is not really necessary and in general it's bad practise, while keeping the history ensures compliance with the site license. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Sources for Mexican Revolution[edit]

This should probably be speedied, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I say we merge what is salvageable back into Mexican Revolution and delete this. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Nom changed per Stifle)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Triunal Motivation[edit]

Fails WP:NOR entierly; google reports all of 1(!) hit, on Wikipedia itself. Coren 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massively Lacerated Face[edit]

nn band M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BSA local councils and districts[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More